"Shithole countries"

[odeon]

Don't really think trump has changed the news.

Sure he has. Instead of the media writing about other events, they tell the world what a moron Trump is. It's all over the news, every day.

It gives him a lot of power to say he's changed the news, because that would mean changing the people who provide the news. The idea is along the same lines of intentional smokescreen conspiracies. While it's more interesting to think there's some powerful manipulation or design behind it all, it makes more sense that superficial news is all over the news everyday because that's what people prefer to learn about from the news. News is about tv ratings, web hits, and print sales just like any other media topic, and that means the news hasn't changed at all.

If we are to believe Calandale, there is a plan. Me, I'm not sure. I think it's less conscious than that but I think the news are now more about his latest tweets and whatnot rather than actual non-Trump news. The latter still happen, mind.

[odeon]

What an utter moron that man is. He is a disgrace for his nation, an embarrassment, a liability. The idea that people actually voted for him is bizarre.

Did he say this and if you say some in that were there in the meeting said so, some also said that he didn't. Do those that said he did have a reason to make something up and have they ever made up similar claims for political reasons?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25817/dick-durbin-has-history-lying-about-private-white-ryan-saavedra#exit-modal

However, IF we are to talk about Haiti, where did the billions of dollars of aid earmarked for Haiti and managed through the Clinton Foundation go?

Two options:

A) Clinton coffers
B) Administrative fees and to sling to friends and family?

Either option will do.

This is not about Clinton, this is about Trump and his inability to function. It's interesting how you suggest those in attendance lied about what he said but yet, you still feel the need to divert the discussion to Clinton.

This speaks volumes to me.

I did not feel a need to both. I did both anyhow. But does Dick has a history of lying about such things? Yes or no? Is there anything to suggest he is not lying now? Why are you running with it then?

I'm wondering why you felt this need. Was it because you know how much Trump lies so you felt you had to somehow divert attention to Hillary. You're a lot like him.

I corrected you once on your insistence to call my reply a need. There is no "need" involved. I will say it again, THERE WAS NO NEED INVOLVED. Just to make it clear for you. I am replying on a message board and I react to posts that catch my fancy. I do not feel a NEED nor a COMPULSION nor that I MUST or that I HAD to do something or HAVE to do anything. Is that entirely clear?

The point is made with or without the Clintons....though again as a further point I wonder why on the many occasions that similar things have occurred with Obama and with the Clintons that the outrage or derision does not seem to be an issue then. I find it curious and I wonder why that is?

The last point is an interesting one. I am just like Trump am I? Really? In which way?

1) Am I really really rich?
2) Am I American?
3) Am I in my seventies?
4) Am I of Swedish/Scottish Heritage?
5) Am I a World Leader?
6) Am I a Father of 4?
7) Am I married to a Supermodel?

I do not see any similarities on the big areas there. But perhaps there are other areas in which he and I share some similarities as most of us do. However, you said I was JUST like him so they must be fairly prominent.

I would like you to point them all out. However, if you attempt to smear me, or unreasonably, unfairly or unjustly disparage me, we are right back off to the races and this again will be all on you and you will have no leg to stand on if you later try to project how bullied you are.

Either way I am keen to know.

Easy: You deflect a lot when cornered.

Fair enough. I completely disagree. I do not see ANYTHING I have said as a deflection but it has about the same impact as me saying that you fart after every post. It is untrue but mainly it is a little ridiculous.

Untrue? You brought up Obama and the Clinton several times in a discussion about Trump. I call that deflection. And yes, bringing them up was a little ridiculous.

[odeon]

Basic leadership skills 101...

1. Addressing major problems/disasters/tragedies that effect people's lives when they occur or soon after they occur.

2. Reassuring people that those problems are at the very least "being looked into" so that the possibility of them occurring again will be less likely.

State problem and Hawaii certainly should do that. I am sure you have contacted Hawaii and let them know rather than looked at this as a Federal issue which it was not.....right? (Of course not. I know you did not).

While it is touching that you'll support Trump no matter what, I'm really glad that your leadership style remains rare.

There is a lot I do not support Trump in.

Again IS his leadership style rare?

Benghazi - Video narrative





Floods - Martha's vineyards



9/11 - Keep reading



Or is your outrage a little selective? His was NOT a real National issue but rather a state fuck up.

No, this is not deflection it is addressing your assertion of rareness. But again, these are was there a national emergency? Was there a real threat for him to address? Or did Hawaii make an error that affected it's citizens?

A deflection is a deflection by any other name. Gotta love your persistence, tho.

[Al Swearegen]

Basic leadership skills 101...

1. Addressing major problems/disasters/tragedies that effect people's lives when they occur or soon after they occur.

2. Reassuring people that those problems are at the very least "being looked into" so that the possibility of them occurring again will be less likely.

State problem and Hawaii certainly should do that. I am sure you have contacted Hawaii and let them know rather than looked at this as a Federal issue which it was not.....right? (Of course not. I know you did not).

While it is touching that you'll support Trump no matter what, I'm really glad that your leadership style remains rare.

There is a lot I do not support Trump in.

Again IS his leadership style rare?

Benghazi - Video narrative





Floods - Martha's vineyards



9/11 - Keep reading



Or is your outrage a little selective? His was NOT a real National issue but rather a state fuck up.

No, this is not deflection it is addressing your assertion of rareness. But again, these are was there a national emergency? Was there a real threat for him to address? Or did Hawaii make an error that affected it's citizens?

A deflection is a deflection by any other name. Gotta love your persistence, tho.

No, I do get it.

Trump is the only President or person in political office in American history not to have jumped on crisises or on National Emergencies to your satisfaction and to have given appropriate response to the American public.

That is what you seem to be saying.

The reason why, even with these obvious parallels of past situations of National Emergencies having been dealt in similar or arguably worse ways by others, they did not outrage you, is that they were not Trump. 

Now I have, of course, pointed out that the false alarm was....well false. That it was NOT a National Emergency. That it was a state based stuff up with no damage nor National impact....unlike Bush's 9/11 crisis, Hillary's lies about Benghazi, and Obama's reaction to the Louisiana floods. I have also pointed out that the State of Hawaii was both responsible for the stuff up and as such needs to be the one responsible for addressing concerns generating from the mistake they made RATHER than the President. They also need to change procedures and/or training to make sure something as ridiculous does not happen again.

How this in ANY way becomes the President's issue or his fault is quite beyond me.

So far from deflecting, I have addressed both the issue and also given reasoning why I believe YOU see it as something other than what it really is. That issue that would dismiss the seriousness of other worse and more egregious examples of what you claim is terrible when it happens with others is simply that you hate Trump.

THAT is an ideological position. Not actually an indictment on Trump but rather virtue signalling your hatred and a want to create a different standard to hold him to. That is fine. It does not make it deflection and it does not really make any strong case to him being good, bad or indifferent.

Plenty to criticise him for but this is pretty weak and simply comes across as you needing to create reasons to be unreasonably outraged.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm just wondering what was covered over this time.


So far, these outbursts of media bait have inevitably buried some other piece of news.

This isn't the first time wondering if maybe you're one of my sockpuppets. Was just about to say, everything since trump took office has been over sensationalized hype about what crap spills from Trumps lips or tweety fingers. It all strikes as a diversion tactic because the news isn't reporting on the context of the political/governmental happenings surrounding the hoopla. The news isn't reporting on the content or the outcome of the meeting, only OMG Trump said shithole.

I have a hard time remembering the last crisis - The Wolf book - all but forgotten after 48 hours. That was going to bring him down then this last thing sucked the air right out of that.

Remember how the Russia thing morphed into Obstruction of justice which morph into mentally unfit and now I think is morphing into racist.

Like a laserlight and a cat.

Now who knows apart from bashing Trump and chasing the laserlight, what the Democrats are about? Who are their leaders? Who are they rallying behind? What is their message?

Deflecting again, I see.

I do not think you do see. In fact, my premise is that you are ideologically blinded by your political and personal hatred of Trump and what you believe he represents to the point that you are unable to look at him with any reasonable rationality.

But let's assume for the moment that my strongly held belief in your ideological blindness is not true. How is what I said deflecting and if so from what exactly?

[odeon]

Basic leadership skills 101...

1. Addressing major problems/disasters/tragedies that effect people's lives when they occur or soon after they occur.

2. Reassuring people that those problems are at the very least "being looked into" so that the possibility of them occurring again will be less likely.

State problem and Hawaii certainly should do that. I am sure you have contacted Hawaii and let them know rather than looked at this as a Federal issue which it was not.....right? (Of course not. I know you did not).

While it is touching that you'll support Trump no matter what, I'm really glad that your leadership style remains rare.

There is a lot I do not support Trump in.

Again IS his leadership style rare?

Benghazi - Video narrative





Floods - Martha's vineyards



9/11 - Keep reading



Or is your outrage a little selective? His was NOT a real National issue but rather a state fuck up.

No, this is not deflection it is addressing your assertion of rareness. But again, these are was there a national emergency? Was there a real threat for him to address? Or did Hawaii make an error that affected it's citizens?

A deflection is a deflection by any other name. Gotta love your persistence, tho.

No, I do get it.

Trump is the only President or person in political office in American history not to have jumped on crisises or on National Emergencies to your satisfaction and to have given appropriate response to the American public.

That is what you seem to be saying.

The reason why, even with these obvious parallels of past situations of National Emergencies having been dealt in similar or arguably worse ways by others, they did not outrage you, is that they were not Trump. 

Now I have, of course, pointed out that the false alarm was....well false. That it was NOT a National Emergency. That it was a state based stuff up with no damage nor National impact....unlike Bush's 9/11 crisis, Hillary's lies about Benghazi, and Obama's reaction to the Louisiana floods. I have also pointed out that the State of Hawaii was both responsible for the stuff up and as such needs to be the one responsible for addressing concerns generating from the mistake they made RATHER than the President. They also need to change procedures and/or training to make sure something as ridiculous does not happen again.

How this in ANY way becomes the President's issue or his fault is quite beyond me.

So far from deflecting, I have addressed both the issue and also given reasoning why I believe YOU see it as something other than what it really is. That issue that would dismiss the seriousness of other worse and more egregious examples of what you claim is terrible when it happens with others is simply that you hate Trump.

THAT is an ideological position. Not actually an indictment on Trump but rather virtue signalling your hatred and a want to create a different standard to hold him to. That is fine. It does not make it deflection and it does not really make any strong case to him being good, bad or indifferent.

Plenty to criticise him for but this is pretty weak and simply comes across as you needing to create reasons to be unreasonably outraged.

Briefly, I considered trying to explain in simple words what leadership is about, but glancing through the above I realised there's no point. You wouldn't understand. Suffice to say that most past presidents (including George W) did better than Trump.

[odeon]

I'm just wondering what was covered over this time.


So far, these outbursts of media bait have inevitably buried some other piece of news.

This isn't the first time wondering if maybe you're one of my sockpuppets. Was just about to say, everything since trump took office has been over sensationalized hype about what crap spills from Trumps lips or tweety fingers. It all strikes as a diversion tactic because the news isn't reporting on the context of the political/governmental happenings surrounding the hoopla. The news isn't reporting on the content or the outcome of the meeting, only OMG Trump said shithole.

I have a hard time remembering the last crisis - The Wolf book - all but forgotten after 48 hours. That was going to bring him down then this last thing sucked the air right out of that.

Remember how the Russia thing morphed into Obstruction of justice which morph into mentally unfit and now I think is morphing into racist.

Like a laserlight and a cat.

Now who knows apart from bashing Trump and chasing the laserlight, what the Democrats are about? Who are their leaders? Who are they rallying behind? What is their message?

Deflecting again, I see.

I do not think you do see. In fact, my premise is that you are ideologically blinded by your political and personal hatred of Trump and what you believe he represents to the point that you are unable to look at him with any reasonable rationality.

But let's assume for the moment that my strongly held belief in your ideological blindness is not true. How is what I said deflecting and if so from what exactly?

Let's assume for a moment that you are NOT deflecting. That, unfortunately, means that you are clueless.

I'd go with deflection if I were you.

[odeon]

Trump's medical sparks online 'girther' movement

"Incredible genes."

[Lestat]

He needs an incredible belt to hold them in one piece without tearing at the seams too....Never mind the genes, its the belt...what I would love to know is how they are weaving carbon nanotube fiber at such a macro-scale.....because no conventional material would be capable of restraining that thing without splitting like the muff of a kitten gangfucked by a troop of silverback gorillas,

[Icequeen]

Trump's medical sparks online 'girther' movement

"Incredible genes."

[Jack]

Don't really think trump has changed the news.

Sure he has. Instead of the media writing about other events, they tell the world what a moron Trump is. It's all over the news, every day.

It gives him a lot of power to say he's changed the news, because that would mean changing the people who provide the news. The idea is along the same lines of intentional smokescreen conspiracies. While it's more interesting to think there's some powerful manipulation or design behind it all, it makes more sense that superficial news is all over the news everyday because that's what people prefer to learn about from the news. News is about tv ratings, web hits, and print sales just like any other media topic, and that means the news hasn't changed at all.

If we are to believe Calandale, there is a plan. Me, I'm not sure. I think it's less conscious than that but I think the news are now more about his latest tweets and whatnot rather than actual non-Trump news. The latter still happen, mind.

Not talking about non-Trump news. Trump has thus far signed aprox 60 executive orders, produced 50 presidential memoranda, signed 10 presidential determinations, 20 foreign relations notices, and signed 100 bills passed by congress into law. Talk is cheap, especially his, but no one seems to care what he's actually doing.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm just wondering what was covered over this time.


So far, these outbursts of media bait have inevitably buried some other piece of news.

This isn't the first time wondering if maybe you're one of my sockpuppets. Was just about to say, everything since trump took office has been over sensationalized hype about what crap spills from Trumps lips or tweety fingers. It all strikes as a diversion tactic because the news isn't reporting on the context of the political/governmental happenings surrounding the hoopla. The news isn't reporting on the content or the outcome of the meeting, only OMG Trump said shithole.

I have a hard time remembering the last crisis - The Wolf book - all but forgotten after 48 hours. That was going to bring him down then this last thing sucked the air right out of that.

Remember how the Russia thing morphed into Obstruction of justice which morph into mentally unfit and now I think is morphing into racist.

Like a laserlight and a cat.

Now who knows apart from bashing Trump and chasing the laserlight, what the Democrats are about? Who are their leaders? Who are they rallying behind? What is their message?

Deflecting again, I see.

I do not think you do see. In fact, my premise is that you are ideologically blinded by your political and personal hatred of Trump and what you believe he represents to the point that you are unable to look at him with any reasonable rationality.

But let's assume for the moment that my strongly held belief in your ideological blindness is not true. How is what I said deflecting and if so from what exactly?

Let's assume for a moment that you are NOT deflecting. That, unfortunately, means that you are clueless.

I'd go with deflection if I were you.

I would imagine it more on you to ACTUALLY make a case for the deflection you claim I make. Clueless does not equal - does not agree with your opinion or perspective. Never did. Deflection does not mean answering something specifically and then making a point about something related to. Deflecting would rather necessitate only doing the latter. I clearly have addressed the former and made points on the latter.

So this does not annoy me. I simply think you have the wrong end of things, and I think it is not a position that needs a strong defence, as there is nothing in what you say. If you make a case for it, I may well have something to actually consider.

[Al Swearegen]

Don't really think trump has changed the news.

Sure he has. Instead of the media writing about other events, they tell the world what a moron Trump is. It's all over the news, every day.

It gives him a lot of power to say he's changed the news, because that would mean changing the people who provide the news. The idea is along the same lines of intentional smokescreen conspiracies. While it's more interesting to think there's some powerful manipulation or design behind it all, it makes more sense that superficial news is all over the news everyday because that's what people prefer to learn about from the news. News is about tv ratings, web hits, and print sales just like any other media topic, and that means the news hasn't changed at all.

If we are to believe Calandale, there is a plan. Me, I'm not sure. I think it's less conscious than that but I think the news are now more about his latest tweets and whatnot rather than actual non-Trump news. The latter still happen, mind.

Not talking about non-Trump news. Trump has thus far signed aprox 60 executive orders, produced 50 presidential memoranda, signed 10 presidential determinations, 20 foreign relations notices, and signed 100 bills passed by congress into law. Talk is cheap, especially his, but no one seems to care what he's actually doing.

There is a lot in what he is doing which is not getting a lot of notice. It is deliberate.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/trump-busts-1500-pedophiles-media-keeps-silent

[Calandale]

US presidents should not be arrested for human trafficking.

[odeon]

Don't really think trump has changed the news.

Sure he has. Instead of the media writing about other events, they tell the world what a moron Trump is. It's all over the news, every day.

It gives him a lot of power to say he's changed the news, because that would mean changing the people who provide the news. The idea is along the same lines of intentional smokescreen conspiracies. While it's more interesting to think there's some powerful manipulation or design behind it all, it makes more sense that superficial news is all over the news everyday because that's what people prefer to learn about from the news. News is about tv ratings, web hits, and print sales just like any other media topic, and that means the news hasn't changed at all.

If we are to believe Calandale, there is a plan. Me, I'm not sure. I think it's less conscious than that but I think the news are now more about his latest tweets and whatnot rather than actual non-Trump news. The latter still happen, mind.

Not talking about non-Trump news. Trump has thus far signed aprox 60 executive orders, produced 50 presidential memoranda, signed 10 presidential determinations, 20 foreign relations notices, and signed 100 bills passed by congress into law. Talk is cheap, especially his, but no one seems to care what he's actually doing.

Which is sort of the point, but maybe I'm not communicating it well enough.